THIS
MATTER is before the Court on initial review of
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, (Doc. No. 15), and on his
motion for entry of default judgment, (Doc. No. 18).
Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. (Doc. No.
6).

Liberally
construing the Amended Complaint and accepting the
allegations as true, Plaintiff, who is wheelchair-bound, was
escorted from his cell at around 9:00 AM for a disciplinary
hearing on February 10, 2014. He was placed in his
hallway's holding cage in full restraints. He was talking
and joking with a nurse when Parker came to the hallway and
yelled at Plaintiff to stop talking. Plaintiff responded he
does not like Parker and was not going to shut up. Parker
said he is tired of Plaintiff's mouth and told Melin to
help take Plaintiff where he needs to go and get him back to
his cell. (Doc. No. 15 at 4). Parker and Melin got Plaintiff
out of the holding cage and Parker began pushing
Plaintiff's wheelchair forcefully and intentionally
bumped Plaintiff into each doorway on the way to the
disciplinary hearing room. Plaintiff became angry and
exchanged words with Parker.

As
Plaintiff was being escorted back to his cell by Parker and
Melin, Marshall came out of his office and said “There
you go! Since you want to squirt people with shit back there,
I got something for you.” (Doc. No. 15 at 4). Plaintiff
thinks Marshall was angry with Plaintiff for harassing
another inmate who wrote to the superintendent stating the
shift officers kept allowing it to happen and did nothing.
(Doc. No. 15 at 5).

Back in
the cell, Parker acted like he could not get one of
Plaintiff's leg shackles off and intentionally scraped
Plaintiff's ankle and leg. Plaintiff became agitated,
said he knew what Parker was trying to do and did not want
Parker touching him, and asked Melin to release his
restraints. Plaintiff turned towards Melin and moved his leg
towards her as she moved towards Plaintiff. Parker said
“No! I got it” and snatched the shackle which
lifted Plaintiff's leg straight up and flipped him out of
his wheelchair, causing him to hit his head on the side of
his cell door. (Doc. No. 15 at 6). Parker wrapped the shackle
chain around Plaintiff's leg and placed Plaintiff in an
ankle lock as if trying to break it, before throwing his leg
down. Melin stood back and watched as Plaintiff cried out.
Plaintiff tried to roll out of his wheelchair but Parker
grabbed his shirt and forcefully pushing him down. (Doc. No.
15 at 7). Parker called for staff assistance and Officer
Sturdivant was the first to arrive. Parker told Sturdivant to
finish taking Plaintiff out of restraints and put him back in
his cell. Marshall arrived with Hoyle and yelled to
“pick his ass up and bring him to the hallway”
and to leave the wheelchair. (Id.). Parker picked up
Plaintiff by his dreadlock/arm, Hoyle picked him up by his
legs, and they threw him into a hallway holding cage in full
restraints. Parker ripped out three of Plaintiff's
dreadlocks and threw them in Plaintiff's face before
closing the door.

Plaintiff
had severe pain in his leg, back, arms and neck so he began
yelling for a nurse. Nurses Julius and Harris came out of
their room and Julius asked what happened. However, Marshall
told the nurses to “ignore him” and instructed
Parker and Hoyle to removed Plaintiff from his hallway.
Parker and Hoyle carried Plaintiff outside to the recreation
yard, threw him on the ground, kicked and spit on him, and
left him there. (Doc. No. 15 at 8). Plaintiff was left
facedown on the ground in full restraints for approximately
two hours. During that time, Harris came outside with Officer
Sturdivant to observe Plaintiff through the gate while
Plaintiff was on the ground in pain. Harris refused to have
Sturdivant open the gate. Despite Plaintiff's complaints
of pain and need of medical attention, Harris stated
“you look alright to me” and left.
(Id.). Later Sturdivant came to get Plaintiff with
his wheelchair and took him back to his cell. Plaintiff was
forced to stay in full restraints 48 hours and, during the
first 24 hours, he was not given a two-hour break pursuant to
policy. No use-of-force policy reporting was used that would
have included pictures, a medical examination, and
Plaintiff's statement.

Plaintiff's
personal property including headphones, hygiene products,
magazines, legal and personal mail, family pictures, and
books, was seized and scattered all over an empty office
floor in the hallway. (Doc. No. 15 at 8-9). Defendants failed
to complete a DC-160 inmate inventory sheet pursuant to
policy.

When
Plaintiff was let out of full restraints a couple days later,
he attempted to hang himself. He was sent to medical where he
was placed on observation and told mental health what had
happened and who was responsible for his sudden anxiety and
depression. (Doc. No. 15 at10). After Plaintiff was released
he wrote a sick call request explaining his pain for use of
force. Dr. Hasan ordered a muscle relaxer for Plaintiff's
pain and some x-rays. Parker was working the day Plaintiff
was supposed to get his x-rays done, and Plaintiff told
Parker he did not want Parker touching him. Marshall came out
and said “that's a refusal” so Plaintiff
never received his x-rays. (Doc. No. 15 at 10).

Marshall
and Parker continued harassing Plaintiff and refused to give
him his personal property. Two weeks later, Plaintiff
overdosed and tried strangling himself. He was put on medical
observation for nine days. Plaintiff's psychologist told
Plaintiff that he did not want Plaintiff to go back to the
unit with so much going on so he sent Plaintiff to Central
Prison's mental health where he stayed for six months.

Plaintiff
has filed a “Declaration for Entry of Default Judgment,
” (Doc. No. 18), in which he argues that the Defendants
were served in January 2017, and have failed to respond.
Contrary to Plaintiff's contention, no defendants have
yet been served. His motion for default judgment is therefore
denied.

III.
STANDARD OF REVIEW

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A
&ldquo;court shall dismiss [a prisoner&#39;s] case at any
time if the court determines that ... the action or appeal
... fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted.&rdquo; 28 U.S.C. &sect; 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A
complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a
claim &ldquo;unless &lsquo;after accepting all well-pleaded
allegations in the plaintiff&#39;s complaint as true and
drawing all reasonable factual inferences from those facts in
the plaintiff&#39;s favor, it appears certain that the
plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his
claim entitling him to relief.&#39;&rdquo; Veney v.
Wyche, 293 F.3d 726, 730 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting
Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th
Cir. 1999)). In its frivolity review, a court must determine
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.